While the Star had initially stood by its story by reporter Rick Westhead, subsequent investigation indicates that this story was offside from the get-go.

To echo the conclusions of other media outlets and many Twitter comments this week, this was a story that was too good to be true.

On the face of it, it was certainly a good story. When I first read it, I was delighted by this news, giving the PM points for seemingly truly getting the historical importance of a hockey series etched in Canadians’ consciousness.

I was instantly transported back to September of ’72, reliving the moments in my school gym when a vice-principal dared to turn off the TV and send us back to class in the final period of the final game. We refused to move, hundreds of teens sitting firm and then joyously witnessing the last seconds of the game when Paul Henderson scored that “goal heard round the world.”

Westhead’s initial story was based on interviews with tournament organizers and other sources. It said the PM was already making plans to visit Moscow in September when the Canadian ambassador to Russia, John Sloan, contacted tournament officials to request the date of the first exhibition game be changed so Harper could play. Westhead was unable to reach Sloan to confirm this.

But, as it turns out, the reporter was given strong indication by the PM’s office even before his story was published that this was not so. According to an email exchange with a PMO press secretary, Westhead was officially told that no firm travel plans had been made for September.

The press secretary then added: “Off the record. I’ve never heard of Ambassador Sloan’s comments on the game, saying that the PM would play, do you have a source for that? I have no clue where he would have got that from, it’s inaccurate. Just curious.”

Westhead, an experienced reporter who has broken many stories in sports and business, responded that his tip came from a tournament organizer and asked, “Are you saying (the source) is lying?”

Here’s where it gets confusing.The PMO provided no further response to that question. In fact, this same press secretary then sent Westhead a photo of Harper playing road hockey.

Westhead now realizes his error here. “I should have gone back again, after he sent me the hockey photo, and demanded an on-the-record answer,” he told me, adding he thought the spokesman was saying that if the ambassador had said publicly Harper was confirmed to play, that was inaccurate.

“That alone did not discount in my mind the possibility that there were still backroom discussions taking place about it.”

I don’t understand why such critical information was given to Westhead off the record. Why deny something off the record?

On this, I learned something about the rather Byzantine manner of the PMO’s communications style. It seems to me that Westhead didn’t grasp a code that the Star’s Ottawa bureau reporters have come to understand.

Angelo Persichilli, Harper’s director of communications, was copied on Westhead’s first email to the PMO. It outlined the Moscow hockey game and stated: “I understand that ambassador Sloan has indicated PM Harper is interested in playing in that game.”

Persichilli told me the PMO is often asked to comment on speculation about Harper’s schedule.

“To avoid having to comment on-the-record to every rumour — no matter how wild or speculative it may be — our office will typically seek to provide off-the-record guidance to the reporter,” he said. “This arrangement is mutually beneficial as it helps to keep fantastical rumours out of the press and helps reporters avoid publishing false information.”

However confusing this might be for a reporter who is not familiar with the PMO’s press strategy, the Star bears responsibility here for publishing this “exclusive” without clearer confirmation — or denial — from the PM’s office.

Unfortunately, Star Editor Michael Cooke, who was understandably excited by this story, did not know the PMO had indicated to Westhead that his information was “inaccurate.” Neither did senior editors who wrote the headline based on Westhead’s statement that the PM is “making plans to play” in two exhibition games.

Westhead now thinks that rather than writing that Harper was “making plans to play” he should have written that there had been early-stage discussions about his participation.

His story also needed make to make clear that the Star could not confirm with Harper or the ambassador what his sources had said.

Westhead’s story also outlined the risks of “high-sticks” diplomacy, speculating on the possibility that for Harper or Putin, a lost faceoff could mean losing face on the world stage.

More on thestar.com

We value respectful and thoughtful discussion. Readers are encouraged to flag comments that fail to meet the standards outlined in our
Community Code of Conduct.
For further information, including our legal guidelines, please see our full website
Terms and Conditions.